NEWRY — The Newry Withdrawal Committee and its legal and educational consultants pondered their next step last week after being stymied by their School Administrative District 44 counterparts.

The two groups have tried mediation in an effort to come up with a withdrawal agreement on which the the town of Newry could vote.

But the SAD 44 panel decided to stick with nearly the same bargaining position regarding financial settlements with Newry that it has held for several months, arguing that anything else would be unfair to the other towns in the district.

SAD 44 did offer to explore the possibility of more voting power on the School Board for Newry, if the town would end the withdrawal process.

But the Newry negotiators rejected it, saying they did not have the authority to do that.

Newry educational consultant Dr. Mark Eastman, former superintendent of SAD 17, and legal consultant Dan Stockford are experienced in the withdrawal process, having advised other towns. But both said they have never seen anything like the situation between Newry and SAD 44.

“I’ve never seen a flat ‘no’ with no counter,” said Eastman at last week’s committee meeting. “To me, this is scary. All you have to do is say ‘no’ and not negotiate, and you stonewall whatever community is trying to withdraw from a district. What I see is the complete disenfranchisement of the Newry citizens. The Newry citizens might not accept withdrawal, but they aren’t even going to get a chance to vote on a proposal.”

A state Department of Education official said last week that while the law requires an agreement within 90 days of the start of the process, an extension is always granted when delays occur, and there is no provision for indefinite delays.

Stockford added that the Newry situation is a unique one because of the significant financial implications involved, and that in other withdrawal processes, the circumstances have been such that the parties usually want to come to an agreement.

Former Selectman Brooks Morton, who also attended the committee meeting, asked if it was legal for SAD 44 to “refuse to negotiate.”

Stockford said the issue of good-faith negotiations has not been tested in court in other situations, but that Newry could consider pursuing legal action.

Committee Chairman Jim Sysko said he had heard from “a couple of people” who had offered private donations toward a lawsuit against SAD 44. He said that with the anticipated bills to cover mediation costs, the town will be down to about $10,000 of the $50,000 approved by voters for consultant fees for the withdrawal process.

Sysko threw the discussion open to the handful of Newry residents who attended the meeting, asking whether it was worthwhile to continue negotiations.

Doug Webster said to continue to negotiate with no prospects for resolution would be “a waste of our resources.” He suggested looking for another solution.

“I wouldn’t back down, just on the principle,” Morton said. “They’re turning this into an undemocratic process.”

“I wouldn’t (back down), either,” Gary Drown said.

“You can’t do anything,” Tama Drown said. “They’ve got you.”

Stockford was asked whether the town could set a vote to end the withdrawal process, if there was a reason to do so. He said it was possible.

“The Withdrawal Committee has a mission and a mandate to come up with a withdrawal agreement,” he said. “If they decide to terminate the process, then there should be a vote from the town.”

Selectmen would have the authority to set such a vote, he said.

The committee then went into executive session to discuss strategy. Sysko said Monday that after that session, the committee voted unanimously “to ask SAD 44 for a good-faith counterproposal that doesn’t require us to give up our withdrawal effort.

The words ‘good faith’ will be emphasized,” he said.

Polak responds

Marcel Polak, chairman of the Withdrawal Committee, was asked Monday if his panel has been bargaining in good faith.

“The short answer to whether or not we are bargaining in good faith is absolutely ‘yes,'” he said. “Our ‘good-faith bargaining’ is based on the fact that we are negotiating on behalf of the entire district: students, homeowners and businesses.

“We have made our own proposals to the NWC and they have rejected these,” he continued. “The current funding arrangement established and maintained by the Maine Legislature is unique and has already set a precedent.

“We care about the future of public education for all the students in this district, and withdrawal as proposed by the NWC will likely have a significant negative impact on all our students because of the dramatic change in funding.”

Polak went on to address another issue that arose during mediation between the negotiating parties: the attendance record of the Newry panel.

“I thought that mediation was supposed to be both sides making proposals and both sides listening and responding,” he said. “Our entire committee attended both sessions in Portland. The NWC only had two members out of four present. It’s very difficult to negotiate with only half of a committee.”

At the Newry committee meeting last week, the four members also discussed their attendance at the mediation (only Sysko and Gary Wight were present).

But Stockford said all of the committee members were not required to be there.

“My view of that was that it was a pretext — a red herring — for them, being unwilling to make any offer to us,” he said.

Eastman added that in an earlier phase of negotiations with SAD 44, the Newry group had negotiated with only Polak and Superintendent Dave Murphy representing the district.

Copy the Story Link